The Big Cat Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) Wrong. Freedom does not include the right to end another life. That other life is also entitled to it's rights, the first and foremost is the right to life. And by "life" you mean "existence." "Right to existence," burden on others and a danger to society, though it may be. Because a "right to life" SHOULD entail "right to quality of life" which nobody seems in the slightest bit interested in guaranteeing to anybody in this country. You seem to champion one's right to obliterate another's quality of life, without second thought. Edited January 24, 2017 by The Big Cat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 it's not trolling to remind somebody that the aggregate did prefer the dnc candidate. Agree. However, it's not relevant that more voted for Hillary as the election winner is determined by electoral votes and the smart candidates deploy a campaign strategy to win on that basis. Hillary and her supporters get the consolation prize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) Agree. However, it's not relevant that more voted for Hillary as the election winner is determined by electoral votes and the smart candidates deploy a campaign strategy to win on that basis. Hillary and her supporters get the consolation prize. of course, but that wasn't the context in which the retort was made. but i agree. it's not like we made up the rules for winning an election on the ninth. Edited January 24, 2017 by The Big Cat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 Because a "right to life" SHOULD entail "right to quality of life" which nobody seems in the slightest bit interested in guaranteeing to anybody in this country. Define what you believe to be 'quality of life' and then tell me what guarantees you would like everyone to receive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 it's not trolling to remind somebody that the aggregate did prefer the dnc candidate. In California. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted January 24, 2017 Share Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) Define what you believe to be 'quality of life' and then tell me what guarantees you would like everyone to receive. Oh, I'm willing to start very, very low. Like: Reliable/responsible/designated caregiver with a basic, functional knowledge of human biology and child development. If you want, I'd be happy to head on down to 35th and MLK here in Chicago. I used to work in an office about 200 yards from the intersection. It might give some their first glimpse of what people turn into when they don't have these basic necessities. Kids you don't want and no intent to raise them: it's a hell of a combination. And a staggeringly lethal one when you have unlimited access to illegal firearms. Our 2016 body count made that abundantly clear, and thus far we're on pace to beat it in 2017! In California. Please help me understand why you keep making this distinction. Edited January 24, 2017 by The Big Cat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Oh, I'm willing to start very, very low. Like: Reliable/responsible/designated caregiver with a basic, functional knowledge of human biology and child development. If you want, I'd be happy to head on down to 35th and MLK here in Chicago. I used to work in an office about 200 yards from the intersection. It might give some their first glimpse of what people turn into when they don't have these basic necessities. Kids you don't want and no intent to raise them: it's a hell of a combination. And a staggeringly lethal one when you have unlimited access to illegal firearms. Our 2016 body count made that abundantly clear, and thus far we're on pace to beat it in 2017! Please help me understand why you keep making this distinction. How do you make that happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Please help me understand why you keep making this distinction. Because the "Hillary won the popular vote" argument is the "The electoral college is unfair because it lets a few states dictate the results for the whole country" argument. But since Hillary only won the popular vote nationally because of one state, the "Hillary won the popular vote" argument is an argument for letting ONE state dictate the results for the whole country. It is the worst sort of hypocrisy. It is an argument that is prima facie completely inconsistent. It reduces axiomatically to the belief that the system should be rigged to produce an outcome favorable to the hypocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Because the "Hillary won the popular vote" argument is the "The electoral college is unfair because it lets a few states dictate the results for the whole country" argument. But since Hillary only won the popular vote nationally because of one state, the "Hillary won the popular vote" argument is an argument for letting ONE state dictate the results for the whole country. It is the worst sort of hypocrisy. It is an argument that is prima facie completely inconsistent. It reduces axiomatically to the belief that the system should be rigged to produce an outcome favorable to the hypocrite. Which is precisely why that wasn't the argument I was making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 So you're arguing that she can consciously do something that she knows can lead to the creation of new life, but still be able to kill that life if she chooses? Some would argue that if you're too irresponsible to practice safe sex, and your answer to your irresponsibility is to end a life that you created because of your irresponsibility, that maybe she shouldn't be left to making any more decisions. But those are people are believe all lives matter. You apparently think they only matter sometimes. i wish i knew the source, it was on Stern but there was talk about how women getting abortions who are simply irresponsible are a lot, significantly, less likely to get an abortion. it's not trolling to remind somebody that the aggregate did prefer the dnc candidate. what would you say to the polls conducted by Politico and others that had Trump beating Obama routinely...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 i wish i knew the source, it was on Stern but there was talk about how women getting abortions who are simply irresponsible are a lot, significantly, less likely to get an abortion. what would you say to the polls conducted by Politico and others that had Trump beating Obama routinely...? Were they the same ones who had HRC beating Trump senseless? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Were they the same ones who had HRC beating Trump senseless? politico giving trump the benefit of the doubt is the biggest laugh of it. but, still, you have no real point. the B word lost. and we're all better off for it. zieg heil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 politico giving trump the benefit of the doubt is the biggest laugh of it. but, still, you have no real point. the B word lost. and we're all better off for it. zieg heil. You must have mistaken me for one of your liberal punching bags. I voted for my mom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 You must have mistaken me for one of your liberal punching bags. I voted for my mom. nah. I know you're a big kitty. Duh Your mom has more experience than Hillary to qualify as president Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 How do you make that happen? If that is of any concern, and we absolutely must have the Government involved in individuals reproductive decisions to placate the " pro-life" crowd , I'd say this: I'd be more likely to be a proponent of government background checks, means testing, and drug testing of potential parents than banning abortion. Screen them and license them, rather than have the Government mandate parenthood upon those who clearly are too irresponsible to be parents. Banning abortions would be a terrible idea. If they can't handle simple contraception than they certainly cannot handle the responsibility nor the expense of parenthood . I'm sure a large percentage of those government mandated children would end up on the welfare rolls . We license to drive cars and buy guns, yet just anyone can parent a child? Isn't that a much greater responsibility? There is a much better argument to be made for government to limit parenthood than there is to mandate it upon all who become pregnant ; the unable, the unwilling, the irresponsible. The best scenario though is simply to keep it the way it is and keep the government out of it altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 You must have mistaken me for one of your liberal punching bags. I voted for my mom. I've been curious as to who else did this. I voted for my 7 year old daughter so in case she ever runs I can say I cast the first vote ever for her. It seemed as good a reason as any to cast a vote in CA; you know, since I was there away voting on pot and condoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 If that is of any concern, and we absolutely must have the Government involved in individuals reproductive decisions to placate the " pro-life" crowd , I'd say this: I'd be more likely to be a proponent of government background checks, means testing, and drug testing of potential parents than banning abortion. Screen them and license them, rather than have the Government mandate parenthood upon those who clearly are too irresponsible to be parents. Banning abortions would be a terrible idea. If they can't handle simple contraception than they certainly cannot handle the responsibility nor the expense of parenthood . I'm sure a large percentage of those government mandated children would end up on the welfare rolls . We license to drive cars and buy guns, yet just anyone can parent a child? Isn't that a much greater responsibility? There is a much better argument to be made for government to limit parenthood than there is to mandate it upon all who become pregnant ; the unable, the unwilling, the irresponsible. The best scenario though is simply to keep it the way it is and keep the government out of it altogether. Nice one Sanger. Jeez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) Oh, I'm willing to start very, very low.7 Like: Reliable/responsible/designated caregiver with a basic, functional knowledge of human biology and child development. That doesn't solve the problem. In fact, it ultimately makes the problem worse. Edited January 25, 2017 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 I've been curious as to who else did this. I voted for my 7 year old daughter so in case she ever runs I can say I cast the first vote ever for her. It seemed as good a reason as any to cast a vote in CA; you know, since I was there away voting on pot and condoms. It was between her and Gene Wilder. Casting a vote for the Waco Kid doesn't seem that ridiculous when you consider mine wouldn't have been the only Cook County ballot for the deceased. That doesn't solve the problem. In fact, it ultimately makes the problem worse. Agreed. It has to be a solution in conjunction with REAL efforts made to institute the cultural shifts that are really needed to end the scourge or at least reign it in. But we're not attempting that in any way shape or form so the least we can do is deal with living tragedies that are literally born every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 But we're not attempting that in any way shape or form... And unfortunately, if you're not addressing the problem and ONLY addressing the symptoms, the problem gets much worse over the long term. Addressing the problem has to be the priority first and foremost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts